Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Custom Skins => Topic started by: Kev367th on June 30, 2006, 11:29:10 PM
-
Spit PR Mk Ia Type G
As the Pink Spit Ia it is a fully armed PR Spit, this time from mid 41.
-
Great stuff Kev. Interesting how you've really given some variety to the Spit I family now.
Wonder if you could get away with doing one of the ASR Spit IIs that would be in the later Gray/Green camo and the 42-45 roundels? They had the different under the fuselage markings too for the ASR role, but they were armed to protect themselves.
-
All I need is a pic / profile.
-
OK then :)
Spitfire IIC (C was the designation for ASR not Cannon armament) P8131 early 1943 276 ASR Squadron Coded AQ-C. Note that codes were in yellow and it was standard Gray Green camo with the yellow leading edge ID band, 42-45 roundels and the black band down the center of the fuselage belly.
-
Details
-
And the undersides
-
Black stripe will be tricky, with the stretch and all.
-
Black stripe isn't going to be a real problem.
Early preview -
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Spit PR Mk Ia Type G
As the Pink Spit Ia it is a fully armed PR Spit, this time from mid 41.
quah!
-
My job is the find a bare metal Spitfire MkXIe, or a MkXVI.
which me good luck ;)
-
All that will be left is bare metal IXe/XVI and XIV.
Final Mk Ia Type G - Just a few tweaks here and there -
-
wish*
-
holy crap those are some nice Spits. but one other thing I would love to see... the Spitfire Mk.VIII and IX had 'C' type wings meaning they could carry either 4 X 20mm w. 120 rpg or the regular 'B' type armament we see in AHII currently or they could carry 8 X .303 cals.
Also, bomb load was supposed to be 1000 lbs. like it is for the Mk.XVI. It kinda degrades the plane when one takes away the vast arms options of the Spit. Oh well...
By the way, I remember reading a post about how Luftwaffe pilots in 1944 started resenting fighting against a Spit and wanted to fight the P-38. Now why did they hate the Spit so much? Did they think of it as some unworthy opponent?
-
Have yet to see ANY pic of an VIII or IX with 8x.303s.
What would be nice is to retag the XVI as a LF IX, and give it either .303 (1943 LF IXc), or 50cal (1944 LF IXe) options.
Someone actually worked out with the FTH on the XVI it is actually LF IX anyway.
Ord and drop tank options are woeful on all Spits.
-
lol i've noticed, but at least its not horribly nasty. The merely average load 1000 lbs. can still be very effective depending on their use. If you're a good shot, you can take out a bunch of trains with just 1 bomb each - and the Spit VIII's (are supposed to) have 3. Many a time have i wished my Mustang carried just 1 more bomb to demolish the locomotive pulling the train.
Also the single small drop tank does give a fair range for an interceptor like the Spit. I just hope they'll give the Spits the proper gun and bomb fits.
By the way, the Commemorative Air Force has a Spit Mk.IXc - Mk297 - which is armed with 8 X 303's. It was used for the BoB movie, but the 303's were never actually used operationally. Here's a link which may or may not work for you ('cuz it doesn't work on my comp) so just copy and paste it if need be:
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/registry/spitregistry/spitfire-mk297.html (http://)
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
lol i've noticed, but at least its not horribly nasty. The merely average load 1000 lbs. can still be very effective depending on their use. If you're a good shot, you can take out a bunch of trains with just 1 bomb each - and the Spit VIII's (are supposed to) have 3. Many a time have i wished my Mustang carried just 1 more bomb to demolish the locomotive pulling the train.
Also the single small drop tank does give a fair range for an interceptor like the Spit. I just hope they'll give the Spits the proper gun and bomb fits.
By the way, the Commemorative Air Force has a Spit Mk.IXc - Mk297 - which is armed with 8 X 303's. It was used for the BoB movie, but the 303's were never actually used operationally. Here's a link which may or may not work for you ('cuz it doesn't work on my comp) so just copy and paste it if need be:
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/registry/spitregistry/spitfire-mk297.html (http://)
Can't use a warbird as proof of an 8 gun operational Spit VIII or IX. It just didn't happen.
-
lol im pretty sure i highlighted that it couldnt be used operationally...
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
holy crap those are some nice Spits. but one other thing I would love to see... the Spitfire Mk.VIII and IX had 'C' type wings meaning they could carry either 4 X 20mm w. 120 rpg or the regular 'B' type armament we see in AHII currently or they could carry 8 X .303 cals.
Also, bomb load was supposed to be 1000 lbs. like it is for the Mk.XVI. It kinda degrades the plane when one takes away the vast arms options of the Spit. Oh well...
By the way, I remember reading a post about how Luftwaffe pilots in 1944 started resenting fighting against a Spit and wanted to fight the P-38. Now why did they hate the Spit so much? Did they think of it as some unworthy opponent?
Think this is what got us confused, sounded like you wnated an 8 x .303 options for the VIII and IX.
RE: 'c' universal wing - Only for max 500lb bomb load carried as 2 x 250lb on wing pylons, OR one single 500lb on centerline
Wasn't until the 'e' wing this was increased to 1000lb as 2 x 250lb on wing pylons AND one single 250lb or 500lb on centerline.
-
True, the actual 'c' wings could only carry 250 lbs. each, but the centreline rack added 500 lbs to that. Both the 'e' and 'c' type wings had the same loading, but it wasnt until the 'e' wing arrived when the 1000 lb. load was often carried. However, the 'c' type wing could and did carry the 1000lb. load.
It was the Mk.Vc that pioneered the 'c' wing that was only allowed to operationally carry 500 lbs. but by the time the Mk.IXc arrived, a 1000 lb. load could be carried. The fact that it often wasnt was because of the actual Spitfire variant, not the wing.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
True, the actual 'c' wings could only carry 250 lbs. each, but the centreline rack added 500 lbs to that. Both the 'e' and 'c' type wings had the same loading, but it wasnt until the 'e' wing arrived when the 1000 lb. load was often carried. However, the 'c' type wing could and did carry the 1000lb. load.
It was the Mk.Vc that pioneered the 'c' wing that was only allowed to operationally carry 500 lbs. but by the time the Mk.IXc arrived, a 1000 lb. load could be carried. The fact that it often wasnt was because of the actual Spitfire variant, not the wing.
The great Spitfire Wing debate from the Flypast Forums a while back :)
No such thing officially as a Spitfire IXc. Universal Wing or E wing for the IX.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000
-
Confusion comes from logbooks, pilots referred to them as IXa and IXb.
What they were on about -
IXa - Merlin 61 Spit
IXb - Merlin 66 Spit
The actual a,b,c wing designation ended with the Mk V.
-
ooo i see... but the universal mk.IX had a 'c' wing, correct?
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
ooo i see... but the universal mk.IX had a 'c' wing, correct?
The Spitfire Vc was the Spitfire V with the Universal wing
The Spitfire VII, VIII, IX were never intended to have the A or B wing of the Spit V. They were only built with the Universal wing so they didn't give it a letter designation.
When the wing was redesigned to have the 2 20mm and 2 .5mgs they added the E designation so you would see either Spitfire IX which was a Spitfire IX with the Universal wing with 2 2mm and 4 303 or Spitfire IXe which was the redesigned wing with the 2 2mm and 2 .5mgs.
-
I recently talked to Charlie Fox about the Mk.IX he flew, and he said that he carried a 1000 lb. bomb load on his plane (VF-Z) which i believed carried the 'c' type wing. It is also proven in his log books. So Kev, u may yet be incorrect, but thanks for responding to my questions.
UGH, but i feel so idiotic - i drew Mk. Fox a Spit9, yet i forgot the tailwheel ... XD
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
I recently talked to Charlie Fox about the Mk.IX he flew, and he said that he carried a 1000 lb. bomb load on his plane (VF-Z) which i believed carried the 'c' type wing. It is also proven in his log books. So Kev, u may yet be incorrect, but thanks for responding to my questions.
UGH, but i feel so idiotic - i drew Mk. Fox a Spit9, yet i forgot the tailwheel ... XD
I think for AH purposes the Spit IX is the 1943 version so it doesn't carry the bombs. They really didn't start hanging them on the IXs until May of 44 when a couple squadrons tested them out. Lots of photos of Polish Spit IXs with Universal wings with 2 250s and a 500 pounder. Problem for them was their were wing failures if the bomb failed to release.
Some suggest that the E wing was strengthened for this.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
I recently talked to Charlie Fox about the Mk.IX he flew, and he said that he carried a 1000 lb. bomb load on his plane (VF-Z) which i believed carried the 'c' type wing. It is also proven in his log books. So Kev, u may yet be incorrect, but thanks for responding to my questions.
No problem.
Real funny that despite all what is known about the various Spits, the wing types on the IX have always been a hot debate as there is so little hard info on them.
Good example is the kit that was originally used to allow (gotta be carefull here) 20mm and .50's to be fitted to a universal wing, essentially becoming a unversal wing with 'e' wing armament.
They were around prior to D-Day but exact dates unknown.
Or that it is possible most of the 'e' wings on IX and XVI were modified universal wings.
Seems like the only purpose built 'e' wings can be distinguished by their lack of .303 outer panels.
Pilots themselves futher muddied the waters by often referring the Merlin 61 Mk IX as a IXA, and a Merlin 66 Mk IX as a IXB.
I think from a tech standpoint there were really only the Mk IX and the IXe.